UIM claim in Oregon

2021Co., 276 Or App 114, 136 , 366 P3d 821 (2016), aff’d, 361 Or 584 , 396 P3d 885 (2017) (describing a UIM claim as a case within a case).

2021Co., 276 Or App 114, 136 , 366 P3d 821 (2016), aff’d, 361 Or 584 , 396 P3d 885 (2017) (describing a UIM claim as a case within a case).

2014We also rejected Allstate’s argument that, in light of insurance carriers’ policies not to disclose their insureds’ policy limits, any duty to investigate was vitiated because “any attempt to investigate and clarify plaintiffs UIM claim would not have provided Allstate with the information that it needed in order to determine its obligation — in particular, the at-fault driver’s liability limits.” Id. at 399 .

2011Allstate makes arguments identical to those that we considered and rejected in Hall v. Speer, 244 Or App 392 , 261 P3d 1259 (2011), concerning proof of loss in the context of a UIM claim.

2007We concluded that the plaintiffs application for PIP benefits “did not permit defendant to estimate its obligations under plaintiffs policy regarding a future UIM claim because nothing in the documents indicated to defendant that plaintiff was seeking UIM benefits under the policy.” Id. at 340 .

2007There, the plaintiff contended that she had made a proof of loss for her UIM claim through a transcribed statement concerning her application for PIP benefits and a PIP application that included releases for obtaining medical and wage-loss information. 193 Or App at 340 .

1993The majority says only, in Carrier , that "any party can demand a jury trial of the UM or UIM claim." 316 Or. at 352, 851 P.2d at 587 .

1993The majority says only, in Carrier , that “any party can demand a jury trial of the UM or UIM claim.” 316 Or at 352 .

2022Nevertheless, the final instructions submit- ted to the jury did not include any definition of the term “underinsured,” despite explaining that “UIM benefits are paid if any person covered by the policy is injured as a result of the negligence or fault of an underinsured driver” and instructing that, for plaintiff to prevail on her UIM claim, she needed to prove that “she was injured in a motor vehicle collision that was the fault of an underinsured driver.” Cite as 317 Or App 727 (2022) 733 The jury found for plaintiff on her PIP claim and for defendant on the UIM claim.

2022Nevertheless, the final instructions submit- ted to the jury did not include any definition of the term “underinsured,” despite explaining that “UIM benefits are paid if any person covered by the policy is injured as a result of the negligence or fault of an underinsured driver” and instructing that, for plaintiff to prevail on her UIM claim, she needed to prove that “she was injured in a motor vehicle collision that was the fault of an underinsured driver.” Cite as 317 Or App 727 (2022) 733 The jury found for plaintiff on her PIP claim and for defendant on the UIM claim.

2022Id. at 544 .

2022Id. at 544 .

2021Daniels v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Co., 289 Or App 698, 701-02 , 412 P3d 249 , rev den, 362 Or 794 (2018).

2021Daniels v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Co., 289 Or App 698, 701-02 , 412 P3d 249 , rev den, 362 Or 794 (2018).

2021Daniels v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Co., 289 Or App 698, 701-02 , 412 P3d 249 , rev den, 362 Or 794 (2018).

2021Daniels v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Co., 289 Or App 698, 701-02 , 412 P3d 249 , rev den, 362 Or 794 (2018).

2021CONCLUSION For those several reasons, the trial court did not err in reducing plaintiff’s award of damages through an off- set of PIP benefits determined in a post-trial proceeding, in excluding evidence of PIP benefits during the preceding 11 ORS 742.061(3) provides: “Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to actions to recover unin- sured or underinsured motorist benefits if, in writing, not later than six months from the date proof of loss is filed with the insurer: “(a) The insurer has accepted coverage and the only issues are the lia- bility of the uninsured or underinsured motoris

2021Id. at 39 .

2021Id. at 39 .

2014First, plaintiff appears to wrongly assume that defendant’s offer of judgment in this case was a “confession of judgment.” As the Supreme Court explained in Russell v. Sheahan, 324 Or 445, 449-50 , 927 P2d 591 (1996), a judgment entered pursuant to ORCP 54 E is a stipulated judgment, not a judgment by “confession.” 5 Second, to the extent that plaintiff intended to argue about the effect of a consent judgment and not a confession of judgment, we note that the parties litigated and the trial court ruled on the effect of an accepted offer of judgment under ORCP 54 E on the disputed issue concern

2014First, plaintiff appears to wrongly assume that defendant’s offer of judgment in this case was a “confession of judgment.” As the Supreme Court explained in Russell v. Sheahan, 324 Or 445, 449-50 , 927 P2d 591 (1996), a judgment entered pursuant to ORCP 54 E is a stipulated judgment, not a judgment by “confession.” 5 Second, to the extent that plaintiff intended to argue about the effect of a consent judgment and not a confession of judgment, we note that the parties litigated and the trial court ruled on the effect of an accepted offer of judgment under ORCP 54 E on the disputed issue concern

2014“Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.” Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993). “[I]ssue preclusion does not bar relitigation of an issue common to separate claims when those claims are litigated as part of a single action or lawsuit.” Westwood Construction Co. v. Hallmark Inns, 182 Or App 624, 631-32 , 50 P3d 238 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (emphasis omitted); accord Minihan v. Stiglich, 258 Or App 839, 855 , 311 P3d 922 (2013) (“The

2014“Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.” Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993). “[I]ssue preclusion does not bar relitigation of an issue common to separate claims when those claims are litigated as part of a single action or lawsuit.” Westwood Construction Co. v. Hallmark Inns, 182 Or App 624, 631-32 , 50 P3d 238 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (emphasis omitted); accord Minihan v. Stiglich, 258 Or App 839, 855 , 311 P3d 922 (2013) (“The

2014The court shall make the order unless it finds that (1) the request was held objectionable pursuant to [ORCP] 45 B or C, or (2) the admission sought was of no substantial importance, or (3) the party failing to admit had reasonable ground to believe that such party might prevail on the matter, or (4) there was other good reason for the failure to admit.” We review the trial court’s decision to award fees under ORCP 46 C for errors of law and abuse of discretion, Adams v. Hunter Engineering Co., 126 Or App 392, 396 , 868 P2d 788 (1994), and reverse because our holding on defendant’s first assig

2014The court shall make the order unless it finds that (1) the request was held objectionable pursuant to [ORCP] 45 B or C, or (2) the admission sought was of no substantial importance, or (3) the party failing to admit had reasonable ground to believe that such party might prevail on the matter, or (4) there was other good reason for the failure to admit.” We review the trial court’s decision to award fees under ORCP 46 C for errors of law and abuse of discretion, Adams v. Hunter Engineering Co., 126 Or App 392, 396 , 868 P2d 788 (1994), and reverse because our holding on defendant’s first assig

2014“Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.” Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993). “[I]ssue preclusion does not bar relitigation of an issue common to separate claims when those claims are litigated as part of a single action or lawsuit.” Westwood Construction Co. v. Hallmark Inns, 182 Or App 624, 631-32 , 50 P3d 238 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (emphasis omitted); accord Minihan v. Stiglich, 258 Or App 839, 855 , 311 P3d 922 (2013) (“The

2014“Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.” Nelson v. Emerald People’s Utility Dist., 318 Or 99, 103 , 862 P2d 1293 (1993). “[I]ssue preclusion does not bar relitigation of an issue common to separate claims when those claims are litigated as part of a single action or lawsuit.” Westwood Construction Co. v. Hallmark Inns, 182 Or App 624, 631-32 , 50 P3d 238 , rev den, 335 Or 42 (2002) (emphasis omitted); accord Minihan v. Stiglich, 258 Or App 839, 855 , 311 P3d 922 (2013) (“The

2014In September 2008, an adjuster from Alvis’s company “telephoned an Allstate employee to advise that Zimmerman would likely pursue a UIM claim against Allstate.” Id.

2014In September 2008, an adjuster from Alvis’s company “telephoned an Allstate employee to advise that Zimmerman would likely pursue a UIM claim against Allstate.” Id.

2013The court explained that, although the initial report of the accident did not expressly include a request for UIM benefits, it was sufficient to constitute a “proof of loss” for a UIM claim because it included enough information to trigger a duty of the insurer to investigate. 246 Or App at 681-82 .

2013The court explained that, although the initial report of the accident did not expressly include a request for UIM benefits, it was sufficient to constitute a “proof of loss” for a UIM claim because it included enough information to trigger a duty of the insurer to investigate. 246 Or App at 681-82 .

1995North River Insur. v. Kowaleski, 275 Or 531, 535 , 551 P2d 1286 (1976).

1995North River Insur. v. Kowaleski, 275 Or 531, 535 , 551 P2d 1286 (1976).

1995Co., 127 Or App 686 , 874 P2d 85 (1994), require that other available liability coverage must be exhausted before an insured is entitled to pursue a UIM claim.

1995Co., 127 Or App 686 , 874 P2d 85 (1994), require that other available liability coverage must be exhausted before an insured is entitled to pursue a UIM claim.